Presentasjon fra Helene Ingierd i forbindelse med foredraget "Research ethics, scientific misconduct and questionable practices". Foredraget ble holdt online den 23. september 2020.

1. www.etikkom.no
Research ethics, scientific misconduct and
questionable practices:
Where is the line between the acceptable and the
unacceptable?
Helene Ingierd, 23.9. 2020

4. (1)Norms that allow for the emergence of scientific
knowledge, and norms that regulate the relationships
to other researchers
(2) Norms that regulate the relation to individuals and
groups who take part in or who are affected by research
(3) Norms that regulate the relation to society and the
environment
What is research ethics?

5. Example of (1)
Respect the work of other researchers

6. Example of (2)
Obtain informed consent

7. Example (3)
Minimize possible harm

8. • The Research Ethics Act § 5 and 6:
• Research institutions are responsible for:
• a) necessary training of candidates and employees in recognised
norms of research ethics, and
• b) ensuring that everyone who conducts or participates in the
research is familiar with recognised norms of research ethics.
• Research institutions are responsible for handling allegations of
breaches of recognized research ethics norms
The Research Ethics Act (2017)

9. • «…falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and other serious breaches
of recognized research ethical norms committed intentionally or
with gross negligence in the planning, execution or reporting of
research»
The Research Ethics Act (2017)
Scientific misconduct

11. Research Integrity in Norway (RINO)

12. • Fabrication
• Falsification
• Plagiarism
And ..
Attitudes to and reported
experiences with

13. • Accepting, deciding or assigning authorship on other than
significant contribution to a scientific work (‘Gift authorship’​)
• Denying authorship despite significant contribution to a scientific
work
• ‘Salami slicing’
• Copying citations
• Using data with contested ownership
• Refraining to inform on important limitations
• Changing designs/methodologies/results in response to pressure
• Refraining from reporting breaches
• Including irrelevant references
Questionable research practices

14. • We find a high degree of normative consensus in relation to FFP issues. The
clear majority consider such practices to be very problematic.
• The more serious a practice is considered to be, the less common it is for
researchers to have either observed colleagues engaging in such practices
or for researchers to have engaged in it themselves.
• There is also a normative consensus with regard to QRPs, with a few
exceptions, but not to the same extent as for FFP.
• A majority report having received no training in research ethics, or only
one day of training or less.
• 40 percent of respondents say they have engaged in at least one
questionable practice within the last three years.
The status of research integrity in
Norway, Interim report 1

15. «40 percent of
Norwegian
researchers have
done something
questionable»

16. • The practices were ranged as serious.
• Quite many (29,5 %) reported that they knew about
colleagues who had participated in these practices.
Authorship-practices

17. • What reasons are offered for the various attitudes?
• How are the different practices justified?
Qualitative part:
• 3 focus group interviews + 12 individual interviews
Interim report 3
Questions motivated by the survey findings:

18. A. Hval is completing her doctoral dissertation in biology on environmental
diseases in wild fish and farmed fish. Prof. Lien , who is Hval’s supervisor,
requires to be a co-author on Article III, in addition to Article I, where she is
already listed as co-author.
Lien has provided funding for Hval’s project and been Hval's supervisor
throughout the PhD-program. For Article I, Lien has contributed to the
preparation of design and she has given valuable inputs to the analysis of
data. Lien has also provided input on various drafts towards publication.
In Article III, Lien has provided input on various drafts towards publication.
Authorship
Example of gift authorship?

19. Justified authorship is defined by four criteria, in accordance with the criteria
drawn up by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE):
• a) Researchers must have made a substantial contribution to the
conception and design or the data acquisition or the data analysis and
interpretation; and
• b) researchers must have contributed to drafting the manuscript or critical
revision of the intellectual content of the publication; and
• c) researchers must have approved the final version before publication;
and
• d) researchers must be able to accept responsibility for and be accountable
for the work as a whole (albeit not necessarily all technical details) unless
otherwise specified.
Authorship: Recommendations

20. I agreed to give gift authorship on several of my articles due to the
request of the supervisor. I understood it was wrong, but I did not feel
strongly enough about it to argue about it.
…. one chooses to include them in the author list to avoid the potentially
conflict-ridden process of saying that someone has not contributed
enough. So it is primarily to avoid quarreling and to disappoint
someone, that they remain co-authors, even if they do not meet the
Vancouver rules.
Social context

21. It is interesting to reflect on the difference between what is
unethical in relation to research, and what is unethical in
relation to other people, in interpersonal relationships. If
you give someone a co-authorship, they may be able to get
a job instead of another person, right? So the other person
is subjected to harm. But it does not harm research as such.

22. In the social sciences, it takes an awful lot before someone
is acknowledged as an author. And in the social sciences
writing is much more than reporting some results and
discussing them. It is very often about reasoning and
developing reasoning through the writing.
Cultural context

23. Concerning guest authorship, the head of the department
may say: «Well, you have no publications this year, why?
What have you spent your 400 hours on?» And thus, to get
some recognition, you write your name on the student’s
work.
Systemic context

24. 1. Interpretations of norms
2. Social context: Cooperation and coercion
3. Cultural context
4. Systemic context
The acceptable vs the unacceptable
Discussion

25. • There is a need to investigate further the implications of the socio-political and
socio-economic conditions of research for research integrity.
• Research institutions have an ongoing focus on training in research ethics and
the development of skills to handle ethical dilemmas in practice.
• The research community itself conducts internal discussions about research
ethics norms.
What to do?

26. • Research ethics is a broad terms, encompassing internal and
external norms
• Scientific misconduct are serious breaches of good scientific
practice associated with the collective commitment to the pursuit
for truth, and related norms. QRP are ‘grey areas’: practices where it
may be unclear what the norms are, or whether the practice is fact
constitute a breach of the norm in question.
• The main problem is not scientific misconduct. There is a need to
focus more on how to promote research ethics and how to handle
the grey areas.
Conclusions